At 01:13 AM 10/12/2004 +0100, Clive Nicholas wrote:
Richard Williams replied:
> Yes, but you are using a dinky little 2 X 2 table whereas Joseph's table
> is
> 7 X 2. There is a reason that even when you specify -all- as an option on
> -tabulate- you still have to specify -exact- separately -- the Fisher
> Exact
> Test can take a long time even for a computer. I'll try Joseph's problem
> out on my machine and see if I fair any better.
Fair enough, but running a larger table on the -union- data still poses no
problem on my machine (save the (minor?) error registered at the end):
....
Pearson chi2(11) = 107.8144 Pr = 0.000
likelihood-ratio chi2(11) = 105.0420 Pr = 0.000
Cram�r's V = 0.0641
gamma = 0.0342 ASE = 0.009
Kendall's tau-b = 0.0192 ASE = 0.005
integer overflow due to large row margin frequencies
r(1401);
Yes, but notice, you never got Fisher's exact test reported!
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
